• Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I work film and am outraged at the dismissal. What a lot of people neglected to grasp is because they were focused on whether or not Baldwin pulled the trigger is that the trigger wasn’t completely relevant to the crime.

    Even if Baldwin wasn’t the one holding the gun, even if was in the hands of a completely different actor, he should have been charged as part of the Producers for failing to provide a safe work environment. When these sort of things happen we should be asking who was in charge of providing a safe environment, were they made aware of the dangers and why didn’t they stop them. If you are fronting the money, have creative control and hiring and firing power and are cced on safety issues your crew brings up as concerns it’s your duty to make sure your crew is safe… And there were so many red flags on Rust you could have seen them from fucking space. People were leaving the show because they didn’t feel safe. Saying a seasoned actor / Producer would have been unaware while not just being on set but directly interfacing with the process is complete ludacris.

    We talk about Brandon Lee but we should be talking about Sarah Jones. When she was killed by unsafe choices made by Production three out of four Producers on the project, everyone who could not claim complete perfect ignorance of the choices made, were charged criminally.

    This is a sad day for American film labor. Appearantly bosses have no direct liability to keep us safe anymore.

    • nova_ad_vitum
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Even if Baldwin wasn’t the one holding the gun, even if was in the hands of a completely different actor, he should have been charged as part of the Producers for failing to provide a safe work environment.

      Then you’re advocating for a fundamental change to way America manages workplace safety. If Baldwin hadnt been the one to pull the trigger he would never have been charged in a million years. Criminal charges require some level of intent , including involuntary manslaughter or negligent homocide. Unless you can find communications that show that the producers knew the workplace was unsafe and purposely didn’t take action (not acting sufficiently probably wouldn’t be enough), no charges were even possible.

      At most the family of the deceased would have had a strong civil cause of action against the production company, because that’s how workplace safety is handled in 99 percent of cases in the US. That civil liability can then be quantified, analyzed, and insured against. I’m not saying this is a good thing , but criminal charges for company owners have never been how these things have been handled.

      • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Baldwin’s stunt double accidentally discharged a live round under very similar conditions to the lethal event shortly before the fatal accident. Crew members had lodged formal complaints to the Production Manager and many left in protest when these issues were not addressed because it being a non union show there was no other authority to appeal to for better safety standards. The number of armourers they had was not nearly enough for the volume of the show. It not just that they hired crappy ones that violated every common sense rule that exists in the wider body of film. This was a firestorm of factors.

        A lot of the issues are that people do not understand film structure, safety culture and just how regimented things are when done properly. The burden of context required is high and the structure of productions as temporary entities makes it really hard to prosecute and honestly if we weren’t dealing with a face people know this would be easier. The fact he was literally holding the smoking gun means you have two separate but related culpabilities.

        People have been charged in film for these incidents in the past. The fact the prosecution didn’t adhere to proper process does mean there should be a redo… But to dismiss it with prejudice sends a message to these indy films that playing with fire and ignoring flagrant safety violations that would have you instantly shut down on a union show is okay and that is unacceptable.

        • SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          4 months ago

          You’re 100% right all throughout your comment chain. I’m similarly outraged.

          I have an eclectic employment history that includes set safety and theatrical firearm safety. Based on the information available, production was grossly negligent here.

          Just like any other industry, if employees are harmed due to negligence, those responsible for that negligence should be held accountable. Given Baldwin (and production in general) was aware of crew concerns, safety gaps, and previous near misses and had the ability to address those issues but failed to do so, they all should absolutely be held accountable.

          • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            It is a sad fact that our industry is treated and often treats itself so often as an exception to the conventions of a workplace. A lot of it has to do with novel input and output. At our core though we are an industry and the rules aren’t different. It’s just the context of process is more difficult to grock then in other applications of the laws. Producers on indy productions tend to think of their creative role primarily and often consider that they are an employer with responsibilities and duty of care of their employees only belatedly… And society tends to treat them as though they are functionally airhead babies who can’t be held accountable because “how could they know better”.

            It’s their job to know better. They often don’t because a studio tends to have internal means of enforcing safety to protect their investments… But if there’s nobody and no process to stop you making decisions that kill someone then liability is your reward. Indy shows don’t have the safety valve infrastructure and protections union or big studio shows do and that cuts more than one way.

      • catloaf@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        They should be. In cases like this, and Boeing, is infuriating that it’s always a low-level fall guy that goes to prison, and never the managers and execs that personally made the decisions that led to the deaths.

        Like you said, it requires proof, but what I’ve heard is that the competent film crew had issues with production, so they got replaced with people like Hannah Gutierrez-Reed who were far less qualified: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-10-22/alec-baldwin-rust-camera-crew-walked-off-set

        Frankly, to me it is unacceptable that people can decide to cut corners like that, and when people die as a result, the company pays a fine (as with Boeing) and the people ultimately responsible go on leading the company (or film production or whatever).

    • Tiefling IRL@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      It’s the same thing with fire performance. Since it’s so fucking dangerous, you have to be licensed and insured for it in my city. I personally have an elevated producer license which allows me to supervise, but the flip side is that if something goes wrong, even if I’m not performing, my ass is on the line. I’ve heard of producers being questioned for being at a show as an audience member when something went wrong.

      I personally believe that anyone directly involved with production should be charged. It doesn’t matter who pulled the trigger.

      • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Right!? Your average person does not understand the basics of how performance arts in general interface with the law. The perceptions of Producers is really messed up.

        In film it is exacerbated a little because some people are primed to look at actors producing as an honorary role and not a practical one. Sometimes the bar does get lowered a bit to accomodate a big name by delegating a lot of the less fun bits but they are still effectively an employer and they can swing their weight around .

        There’s also a bit of a perception of above the line crew members by the rest of us where Producers and Directors are basically allowed to break a lot of the rules. Due diligence means we inform them of the risk but they are free to ignore it if they really want to do something that damages equipment or wastes time they are the ones paying for it so if they want to be dumb that’s their privilege.

        When it comes to human safety though there are a few people authorized to veto things. Crew and cast are allowed to refuse unsafe work (which is risky because we don’t need to be fired, we can just not be hired on for the next job), the 1stAD who acts as the executive representative of the production liability on the set can say veto directors and producers and the Production Manager is the authority who operates on behalf of the Producers to protect their dumb butts from liability. But Producers ultimately have final say and often no consequences.

        It’s really interesting to me that fire dancing gets the same perception even without all the mess in the middle.

    • solrize@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Baldwin … should have been charged as part of the Producers

      That part of the case against him was dismissed before the trial started iirc.